nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Ministries of Lovia
This is not up-to-date, right? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:07, August 31, 2013 (UTC) The list of ministers is, but not the information and history (it only goes to early 2012 or so). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:54, August 31, 2013 (UTC) :So... It isn't up-to-date? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 21:22, August 31, 2013 (UTC) ::The list of ministers is, but not the information and history (it only goes to early 2012 or so). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 04:53, September 1, 2013 (UTC) :::How can the information and history be up to date if it does go further than early 2012? :| --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:23, September 1, 2013 (UTC) ::::Because (only) the list was updated for 2013, but not the information on the page that is not inside the list was not updated. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:20, September 1, 2013 (UTC) :::::I still don't understand :P Could you please answer the following answer with either "yes" or "no"? :P Is this this page fully up-to-date? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 03:15, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::::The page as a whole is not fully up-to-date. :P Only the list of ministers is up to date, excluding the small matter of Dimitri being replaced by Sebastian, who would presumably take his place on this list as well. 77topaz (talk) 05:12, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Why are there so many ethnic Russian ministers? :o --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:30, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :I noticed that too. --Semyon 16:22, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::There are five of them!!! Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 16:29, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::Just three, I think? Villanova isn't Russian, and Kalinnikov isn't a minister. Still a lot though. --Semyon 16:34, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::Dutchies are very much underrepresented in Lovian politics :P In Sylvania they're supposed to be at 35% or summink, but their surnames are rare in the local politics :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:43, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::::There are also not enough women or gays in Lovisn politics :( Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 16:47, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I believe the number of gays is unknown. Most of the politicians do not yet have a page about them :) @Women: I believe there are way too many women though :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:56, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::::::How are there too many women in politics? There aren't enough women in Lovian politics at all! There are no women in the cabinet! Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 16:59, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I think maybe a lot of users, if they're straight and male, won't even think to make female or gay characters. --Semyon 17:00, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::My main character (Marcel) is a straight male but two of my other characters (Jane Moss and Raquel Cebara) are both women and one of them is lesbian :) Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 17:02, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::@Frijoles: Read: Website:_www.ccpl.lo/Constitution#Protection_of_morals (Women's rights). @Semyon: true :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:03, September 2, 2013 (UTC) @Oos: I'm not being rude, but your stance on women's rights makes the British Conservative Party look liberal :P Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 17:12, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :It's called Dutch conservatism, good for 5% of the Dutch vote :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:21, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::I respect the fact that you're entitled to your own opinion, I just don't agree with your opinion. Nice website by the way :D Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 17:24, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::Just as much as I respect your demonic views :P Anyway, it might explain some inbalance in Congress. CCPL is about 20% of the seats, but I believe we've only got one woman in Congress :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:33, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Haha I'm hardly demonic :P Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 17:37, September 2, 2013 (UTC) : :o Well, as you're semi-socialist, you probably wouldn't consider yourself to be so, no :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:41, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::I don't really think any political party is demonic, as long as they are not discriminatory Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 17:44, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::Depends on how religious you are, I guess :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:45, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::::Me and Frijoles should form some sort of diabolical alliance. :D According to my classification, the UK Conservatives are liberal, particularly the current leadership, though there are admittedly a lot of people in the party who are very conservative. --Semyon 18:02, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::::::The UK Conservatives are actually quite liberal- quite a few of the party members (David Cameron included) are quite socially liberal. However, the opposite is true in Australia- the Australian Liberal Party are actually economically right-wing and socially conservative, confusing eh! Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 18:06, September 2, 2013 (UTC) The UK Conservatives are still quite backwards though, they are suggesting policies such as quotas for women on boards which is completely wrong. Also on the original topic, the number of women in the cabinet should be proportional to the number of women in congress (which in turn should be proportional to the number of women in politics) if assume that everyone is as good as each other. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 19:07, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :I don't agree with that - it's still a form of quota. The problem with quota is that they only superficially fix the problem. If you are unhappy with the number of women in politics or business, then you need to reform the system from the bottom up to prevent discrimination. Otherwise, quota will simply ensure you have 30% of women that in general aren't as good as the 70% of men, not because they're women, but because the men have been promoted for their talent and the women just because they're women. --Semyon 19:17, September 2, 2013 (UTC) ::Also the logic that we should expect equal proportions of women at every step in the career ladder is incorrect in itself. Women tend to work less than men, mainly for cultural reasons involving children, and therefore we'd naturally expect them to be promoted more slowly - and you could also possibly make the argument that women are less ambitious/aggressive/competitive than men. So there should be a decreasing number of women as you reach higher and higher positions, quite apart from their natural ability. I see at university, actually - postgraduates are equally men and women (roughly) but the academics are probably 3/4 men - and my department has awards for advancing the careers of women in science. --Semyon 19:27, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :::Semyon, I completely and 100% agree with everything you've said, I say similar things when debating the point of quotas. Also I feel I need to quickly make sure I don't confuse people with my statement. When I say 'should', I'm not supporting the introduction of targets or quotas for women. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 19:37, September 2, 2013 (UTC) I agree. Quotas and others types of affirmative action only superficially "level the playing field". —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:34, September 2, 2013 (UTC)